This week’s news articles help readers understand the fragility of modern-day immigration. Germany’s reversal of its resettlement program, for example, speaks volumes about public sentiment on refugees. Domestic politics all over the world, in fact, seem to have clearly taken priority over international commitments. In Riham Alkousaa’s and Charlotte Greenfield’s article on Reuters, Kimia’s story is as much a warning as it is an outcry. According to the Politico article, for example, around 2500 Afghans are living in Islamabad, Pakistan, awaiting their relocation to Germany. This number is staggering because of the implications of what a return to Afghanistan would mean for these individuals. In many instances, it would be a matter of life or death. For 25-year-old Kimia, relocation back to Afghanistan is “unthinkable.” These implications are often easy to glaze over, but are important in order for anyone to understand the consequences of such an action.
Although the content provided in the articles this week was fascinating, I was also a little intrigued by what was not present in many of the articles. The Reuters article, for example, included heartbreaking stories about what was unfolding in Pakistan as Germany halted their entry programs. The piece, however, did not substantially mention or question Germany’s decision-making or reasoning for halting such an important program. Although many articles mention an increase in crime as a leading cause of anti-immigrant sentiment, it doesn’t go much further than that. In reality, the people that are being talked about in many of these news pieces are not simply migrants begging a foreign government to allow them to relocate. The reality of the situation seems to be much more complicated. Germany seems to have an obligation to many of these migrants, both legally and ethically. But because there was sparse mention of why the German government is making the decisions they are, I found it difficult to really understand the government’s perspective.
Additionally, some of the articles I read this week make it clear that the migration issue is a huge political problem. For example, not only is the right-wing party in Germany pushing for the removal of many migrants, but they are also politicizing horrible crimes that were committed by a small portion of that asylum-seeking population. By weaponizing these instances, politicians seem to have at least somewhat successfully brought up policy changes that impact innocent refugees as well. Although outrage is warranted when horrific acts are committed against innocent people, I think it is also important to acknowledge that our politicized society has allowed for selective outrage that harms some groups more than others.
As the Euronews piece points out, Germany has decided who it believes needs to be deported back to Afghanistan. Although they mention that the people who were deported had a criminal record, the article does not further specify what these criminal records entail. Furthermore, this article made me question what exactly deportations like these would mean for those being deported. Is German society impacted by these removals in any particular way? Finally, I find it crucial to further investigate how these countries decide who is worthy of protection and who isn’t. With a country like Afghanistan, I personally find it difficult to make such a distinction. Azmat Khan’s NYT series helps shed light on how accountability has been elusive for many people and governments who have made these very distinctions. Khan’s work showed me that many countries have an accountability issue. Many countries, for example, have contributed to many deadly airstrikes in the Middle East, yet these governments still refuse to accept refugees from many of these countries. I find that troubling.
